Monthly Archives: November 2015

In Our Opinion..., Labor In The News

Micro Units – A Toe Hold for Organized Labor

Sandulli Grace Staff November 23, 2015

The NLRB ruled this week that a group of 162 skilled machine maintenance workers assigned to Volkswagen’s Tennessee Facility should be allowed to vote on whether they want to be represented by the United Auto Workers. This election comes on the heels of the UAW’s loss in the representation vote for all hourly employees in that same facility and VW’s diesel emissions scandal.

Within this shift of strategy, a valuable lesson of intelligent persistence can be found.   Rather than become mired, the UAW keeps deliberately pushing to expand organized labor in the South. In a week that marked the hundred year anniversary of the death of Joe Hill, their efforts should be celebrated.

Find the UAW’s press release here.

In Our Opinion..., Labor In The News

BMC Judge Reinstates Tom Finneran’s Pension Benefits

Sandulli Grace Staff November 6, 2015

In a fairly surprising turn of events, on October 9, 2015, the Honorable Serge Georges of the Dorchester Division of the Boston Municipal Court ordered the State Retirement Board to pay former Speaker of the House Tom Finneran what the media has reported to be hundreds of thousands of dollars in pension benefits retroactive to January of 2007 and activate his benefits prospectively.

Previously, the State Retirement Board had ceased to pay Mr. Finneran his M.G.L. c. 32 superannuation benefits. According to the decision, this occurred after Mr. Finneran pled guilty to willfully making misleading and false statements under oath while testifying in his capacity as Speaker in Federal Court regarding a voting rights action that challenged election redistricting at the start of the century.

The State Retirement Board had ruled that this conduct violated M.G.L. c. 32 § 15(4) which states:

(4) Forfeiture of pension upon misconduct.  In no event shall any member after final conviction of a criminal offense involving violation of the laws applicable to his office or position, be entitled to receive a retirement allowance under the provisions of section one to twenty-eight, inclusive, nor shall any beneficiary be entitled to receive any benefits under such provisions on account of such member. The said member or his beneficiary shall receive, unless otherwise prohibited by law, a return of his accumulated total deductions; provided, however, that the rate of regular interest for the purpose of calculating accumulated total deductions shall be zero.

In applying this statute and applicable case law to Mr. Finneran’s guilty plea, Judge Georges stated in summary that:

Turning to the issue whether the Board’s decision that Finneran must forfeit his pension is legally tenable, I conclude that it is not. Although the record indicates that Finneran’s conviction referenced his public employment, inasmuch as the position Finneran held at the time of his perjured testimony and at all times relevant thereto, there is no substantial evidence to support the Board’s conclusion that Finneran’s conviction bore a direct factual link to his position as a House member and/or Speaker. Additionally, there is also no substantial evidence to support the Board’s conclusion that Finneran’s conviction violated a core function of his position as a House member and/or Speaker because there is no evidence in the record of any code, rule or law applicable to Finneran’s public position that connects his conviction to his office. Accordingly, the Boards decision must be reversed.

The State Retirement Board has appealed the decision. Given the profile of the case and the malleable language of the statute, it is likely that higher courts will be keenly interested. For those interested in a broader explanation, please find the BMC decision below or feel free to send me an e-mail.

Read the decision here.

In Our Opinion..., Labor In The News

U.S. Department Of Labor About To Issue New Regulations Expanding Overtime Coverage To Over 5 Million Workers

Alan Shapiro
Alan Shapiro November 2, 2015

Sometimes, I start thinking there isn’t much difference between Democrats and Republicans, since a lot of them remind me of the kids in high school who were running for student council president. But then, when I look at some federal regulations, I am reminded that who is in the White House can make a real difference for millions of people. The recent overtime rules issued by the U.S. Department of Labor show that there can be a clear difference between the political parties.

In the private sector, workers must be paid time and a half for all hours worked beyond 40 in a week. Passed in the 1930’s, this law was designed to encourage employers to hire more workers, since millions were thrown into unemployment by the Great Depression[1]. The statute exempted from the overtime laws “executive, administrative and professional” employees, but left government regulators to enact rules distinguishing employees exempt from overtime from non-exempt ones.

In 2004, the Bush Administration passed rules which “updated” these regulations in a way that left millions of workers without overtime protection. A salaried employee who spent 99% of her time performing manual labor could still be exempt from overtime as long as she made over $455/week. See In Re: Family Dollar FLSA Litigation.

Under the new regulations in the process of becoming law, not only does an “executive” really have to work as one, but s/he must make at least $50,440/year. Regardless of what title or job duties the employer gives the employee, unless s/he makes at least $50,440/year, s/he must receive overtime pay after working 40 hours in a week.

The new regulations, however, are not a panacea, since many companies have reacted by either reducing wages or reducing the hours of employees about to become eligible for overtime for the first time. Since virtually all of these employees are not covered by union contracts, they are powerless to do anything about it. Nevertheless, some formerly exempt employees will receive a raise, and, in some instances, more employees will be hired to fill in for the unlimited hours employers were formerly able to require of their supposed “managers” without any increased cost. As one economist said, “Trust me on this: you’d be very hard pressed to come up with [another] rule change or executive order to lift the pay of this many middle-wage workers.”

[1] In 1933, the U.S. unemployment rate was 25%.